2. music
  3. 1120231330

An observation about "Modern" classical music.

As I sat in my car, waiting for my wife as usual, I listened to a local classical music station which happened to be playing some "modern" music. I don't like it, being an old fart who likes Mozart and his ilk. But, as I had nothing else to do, I tried to appreciate what I heard. No luck, but I did notice something I have experienced before but never thought about. At the end, there was a dead silence of 3 to 5 seconds before audience applause. This never happens with, for example, Mozart where the final notes never get a chance to decay before the applause and Bravos. Obviously (IMHO) the music was so hard to "follow" that the audience were not sure it was over until nothing happened for a while.

I know that some guys like this music, but haven't you noticed this dead time? How do you explain it?
eldartford
eldartford OP
4,262 posts
 
Lousyreeds1..."Follow the music". What do I mean is a fair question.

At any point in the music, at the end of a phrase, there are a great number of "answering" phrases that will "sound right" according to classical rules of composition. The composer keeps my interest by weaving his way through all the possibilities in an innovative way, but never veering off into the weeds. I don't want one musical phrase to be followed by a random assortment of notes, having little or no relationship to what went before.

I am not "intrigued by modern music" but I am curious about it and why people like/dislike it. One professional violist I know plays it because it is a job, and nothing more.
robm321
932 posts
 
Good discussion by the way.

It's nice to see a thread about actual "music" and not equipment on Audiogon.

Rob
lousyreeds1's avatar
lousyreeds1
286 posts
 
Eldartford: Even if you're not interested in the music itself, I think reading one of the great many books written on the subject might be useful if you're curious (intrigued, curious, whatever you want to call it).

You're talking about random assortments of notes. I think most composers would take exception to that. Most of the time, it's not random. Even in the occasions when the notes are random, there's almost always some organizational method to the music. Sometimes it can be fun to figure out what that is.

Also, what do you think of the applause thing? Does my explanation convince? There are all sorts of variables that can cause people to clap earlier/later: familiarity with the piece, dynamic level, etc.
marakanetz's avatar
marakanetz
5,473 posts
 
Rob your point is easy to understand:

A classical music as well as modern classical music and also many sophisticated types of rock, jazz is harder to understand and digest than a simple mambo or Beatles or another words pop. Hence the popularity could be waged accordingly.

Centuries ago there also were ministrels and street musicians that had been fare less complicated than Pastoral symphony.
Take in consideration Strauss who's music was simple compared to the composers of his time...
Can you compare Strauss to Kronos Quartet?

If you start researching Russian post-classical composers you will definitely feel an evolution i.e. progressive development and even to say enterprenurial movements that hadn't been thought of in the era of the classical music...
eldartford OP
4,262 posts
 
Lousyreeds1...Agreed that a piece which ends quietly, (which is not that common) might have applause delayed slightly, but not 3-5 seconds. Also, "modern" music often ends just as loud as any other kind.

"Random" probably was the wrong word. As one who has some familiarity with statistics, I ought to have said "pseudorandom". Pseudorandom is a sequence which appears to be random, but which actually is generated by an underlying algorithm.

Give me the title of one recommended book.
More to discover